Hope you were all told by your Local Leaders....

I surely hope that the majority of you were told by your local leadership that the Company and the Union have agreed (behind our backs) to allow the company to begin and implement ALL Non-economic agreements in the National Master Agreement (Riders and Supplements Included) on January 1, 2008.

They have also agreed to keep the implementation of ALL economic issues effective August 1, 2008.

I am not sure why our General President believes that this action is in our best interests.

The real question that I cannot seem to figure out, nor any of my collegues is: "Whats in it for the Teamsters?"

This early implementation agreement does not help one (1) Teamster.

I would really like to hear what all the Teamster members have to say about being told about the early implementation.

Typo? You mean they still get it or not? What part of the TCD is good? The 200 unattainable reports that should really only be 156!!!!!!!! They cut routes every Monday so there goes 52 reports! They are using so many remote golf cart helpers now that they are only using the TCD's 1 to 2 days a week since Oct. 1st while they cut routes and pay the helpers $8.50 an hour!! They also lie to them and promise them full time jobs in January.

Typo? You mean they still get it or not? What part of the TCD is good? The 200 unattainable reports that should really only be 156!!!!!!!! They cut routes every Monday so there goes 52 reports! They are using so many remote golf cart helpers now that they are only using the TCD's 1 to 2 days a week since Oct. 1st while they cut routes and pay the helpers $8.50 an hour!! They also lie to them and promise them full time jobs in January.

Click to expand...

The man asked what we were told, and I posted it. Didn't say I agreed with it.

What gets me is ok, say they lay a full timer off at company convienience for a TCD..does seniority play in that, meaning they really can't lay off that full timer? Or does that company convienience clause being stricken override that?

This threads topic is whether or not anyone was told that the contract was going into effect on January 1 2008...

Lets try and keep it on track please.

Peace

Click to expand...

I was aware myself that the language part of the agreement was going to take place as of January 1st, 2008. I was first clued into this by the highly questionable loose language in Article 34 of the Master, with regards to part-timers medical.

We, for those of us that showed up, were told at our union meeting, that the language part would start in January and the economics would start in August.

When I was questioned on how I felt by the contract by management at work, it was I who had to explain to them that the language alone would be initiated in January. Of course I believe that this act of not knowing was a cleaver rouse in order for them to sell to the part-timers that the economics would start then too.

My night manager said he thought that we would be getting half of that tentative new raise starting this January, and didn’t know what everyone was bitching about as far as the split. Either he is extremely stupid, or he was using this mock understanding as a means to misinform the part-timers about the raises.

So as far as I am concerned, no, I don’t believe enough is being done by our Union to make this understood.

I surely hope that the majority of you were told by your local leadership that the Company and the Union have agreed (behind our backs) to allow the company to begin and implement ALL Non-economic agreements in the National Master Agreement (Riders and Supplements Included) on January 1, 2008.

They have also agreed to keep the implementation of ALL economic issues effective August 1, 2008.

I am not sure why our General President believes that this action is in our best interests.

The real question that I cannot seem to figure out, nor any of my collegues is: "Whats in it for the Teamsters?"

This early implementation agreement does not help one (1) Teamster.

I would really like to hear what all the Teamster members have to say about being told about the early implementation.

Just curious to see how sneaky they are across this country.

Peace.

Click to expand...

MY STEWARD AND I ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS. IT IS ANY INTERESTING THOUGHT. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BS, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO ASK. "A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE" I HAVEN'T BEEN TO MY CONTRACT MEETING YET, WILL GO SAT. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THIS. IF THE NEW NON-ECO LANGUAGE GOES INTO EFFECT EARLY WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. THIS COULD CAUSE UNEXPECTED RAMIFICATIONS YEARS DOWN THE ROAD

MY STEWARD AND I ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS. IT IS ANY INTERESTING THOUGHT. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BS, BUT IT NEVER HURTS TO ASK. "A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE" I HAVEN'T BEEN TO MY CONTRACT MEETING YET, WILL GO SAT. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THIS. IF THE NEW NON-ECO LANGUAGE GOES INTO EFFECT EARLY WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. THIS COULD CAUSE UNEXPECTED RAMIFICATIONS YEARS DOWN THE ROAD

another example where you seem to seperate yourself from the teamster leadership as if they are some seperate company. The teamsters are you.

Click to expand...

No more so than our country and we are one, right?

But there is no confusion in the questioning of our government. Clearly we can take issue with politics, policy, and laws within our own government, but your suggesting because a majority (of votes only) has elected the teamster officials that we should somehow be unquestioning in our interpretation of how things are run or represented.

That is a fallacy Tie, and you know it. That would be like me chastising you when you are questioning how the democrats are running things (I assume you are a Republican, if only for the sake of argument…). You see the thing you have to understand, which I don’t really think you do, I think you are fully aware, is that not everyone voted for the current representatives of the Union. So its not as if we question the validity of the organization itself, just the people that are running it right now. Hell, some of us even voted for Hoffa (and learned their lessons I hope). More to point, the people that didn’t vote at all need to feel the shame here.

I surely hope that the majority of you were told by your local leadership that the Company and the Union have agreed (behind our backs) to allow the company to begin and implement ALL Non-economic agreements in the National Master Agreement (Riders and Supplements Included) on January 1, 2008.

They have also agreed to keep the implementation of ALL economic issues effective August 1, 2008.

Click to expand...

Uh, I kinda thot that this was up to a vote right now. Who says the Company or the Union is doing anything behind anybody's backs? We have packets, DVDs, websites, etc. I think I'm kinda informed, unless I'm living under a rock and can't read.

I'm not so sure its going to be that easy. 1st - what language is non economical. (Aside from the very obvious) How about 9.5 Language? Or 8 hr requests. They could be considered non-eco except when they violate us and then penalty pays come into effect. I can see this becoming the nightmare of "contracts past" as it were. In our center the biggest issues are 9.5and 8 hr requests. We have waited, sometimes, months for grievance pay on 9.5s. I can see the company taking advantage of the separation of economical and non-economical language in a huge way.

But there is no confusion in the questioning of our government. Clearly we can take issue with politics, policy, and laws within our own government, but your suggesting because a majority (of votes only) has elected the teamster officials that we should somehow be unquestioning in our interpretation of how things are run or represented.

That is a fallacy Tie, and you know it. That would be like me chastising you when you are questioning how the democrats are running things (I assume you are a Republican, if only for the sake of argument…). You see the thing you have to understand, which I don’t really think you do, I think you are fully aware, is that not everyone voted for the current representatives of the Union. So its not as if we question the validity of the organization itself, just the people that are running it right now. Hell, some of us even voted for Hoffa (and learned their lessons I hope). More to point, the people that didn’t vote at all need to feel the shame here.

The Voice.

Click to expand...

A little contradiction of processes. With politics I vote for people to represent my interests. They do a good job I vote them back in. They do a bad job I vote them out. They do not present me each bill to vote on. With the contract ratification they have represented you and now present the bill for your vote.

At this point they asked you what you wanted. if they bring back a contract that gives the members what the majority asked for then in reality you have the responsibility of voting for the offer.

You are a johnny come lately. You did not politic here when negotiations started nor during the process.

You arrogantly showed up afterwards speaking pig latin and calling yourself the voice like you thought you were some kind of force here.

You did not do your job before the process started therefore you recieve no credibility now that the process is done.